Bacteriophages as vaccine platforms: Opportunities and challenges in translation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bacteriophages (phages) have recently received increased interest as versatile candidates for vaccine development. Their inherent characteristics, such as ease of genetic manipulation, high-density antigen display, intrinsic immunostimulatory properties, demonstrated human safety, and scalability in bacterial hosts, make them attractive as next-generation vaccine platforms. Additionally, their cost-effective production, stability, and existing regulatory approval for food and compassionate phage therapy provide a strong foundation for further development of phage-based vaccines. This commentary summarizes the types of phages, the strategies used, and current advances in phage-based vaccine development for viral and bacterial targets, and discusses the promises and challenges of this platform for novel vaccine development. Phage-based vaccines represent an innovative and promising platform for vaccine development to address significant medical and public health challenges, particularly in antimicrobial resistance, pandemic preparedness, and One Health. Accumulative experimental data have demonstrated that phage-based vaccines induce specific cellular, humoral, and mucosal immune responses at magnitudes comparable to those induced by other vaccine platforms. However, a better understanding of phage biology (interactions with the human immune system and microbiome), more carefully designed preclinical studies, Good Manufacturing Practice production development, the regulatory framework, and ultimately clinical trials are needed before the full potential of this platform is realized.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".